I realized a couple of days ago that since our genealogical common ancestors could’ve lived between 2000 to 3000 years ago, this means all humans alive today genealogically descent from Abraham who lived approximately 3000 years ago.
I do know that descendants of Abraham are those who believe (Galatians 3:7) but it’s nice to see the promise of Genesis 22:17 also came out in a natural way.
Not sure if this has implications to the question if everyone is a descendant from the ten lost tribes of Israël for example.
But in general it’s a nice encouragement to believers.
It’s a consequence of the model. If everyone 2000 years ago is descended from Adam, then everyone now is, by the same reasoning, descended from everyone 2000 years after Adam.
True. The point of the Biblical story of Babel is to account for human populations dispersal, and there is nothing in the following Pentateuch narrative to suggest appreciable subsequent interbreeding.
How does that work? If a group of my cousins are all descended from my great-great-grandfather, how does that establish that their children are all descended from one of my cousins?
The point is that the simulation shows that, given a worldwide population of a certain degree of connectivity, any period of 4000 years should be enough for all lines of descent to diffuse worldwide. If a person alive at that early data is ancestral to anyone 4000 years later, he or she is ancestral to everyone 4000 years later. Adam and Abraham are both such people.
If a person alive at that early data is ancestral to anyone 4000 years later, he or she is ancestral to everyone 4000 years later.
Thanks. Yes, and I think that the Y chromosome data implies that Abraham may well have been a real person who has some descendants now, so then we are all likely to be his descendants provided there was enough connectivity of gene flow. Genealogical AdamandEve are only known to have descendants now by defining them to have done so.
Well your ancestors enslaved and horribly maltreated the ancestors of my African American brothers based on stupid notions of superiority due to skin color and other factors. The point is, the father’s sins are the father’s sin.
“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” (Gen. 17:17). Many have assumed that because Genesis 11:26 states, “Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” that Abram (also known as Abraham; cf. Genesis 17:5) was Terah’s firstborn, and that he was born when Terah was 70. The truth is, however, according to the Bible, Abraham was not born for another 60 years. When Stephen was delivering his masterful sermon recorded in Acts 7, he stated that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine “after the death of his father [Terah—EL]” (7:4). Yet if Terah was 205 years old when he died (Genesis 11:32), and Abraham departed Haran when he was 75 (Genesis 12:4), then Terah was 130, not 70, when Abraham was born. In light of this information Henry Morris and John Whitcomb have aided us in better understanding Genesis 11:26 by paraphrasing it as follows: “And Terah lived seventy years and begat the first of his three sons, the most important of whom (not because of age but because of the Messianic line) was Abram” (1961, p. 480).
While the Mesopotamian city of Ur dates back almost 3000 years the city of Chaldees did not exist before the 8th Century. The word Chaldes is actually “chesdim” and is the Aramaic word for that territory. Aramaic came into use in the first millennium BCE. So the supposed genealogy of Abraham is a late invention. He could not have existed 3000- 4000 years ago and in fact like the rest of the major figures of the Bible he never existed at all. The story of Abraham is a carefully designed historical fiction which is a myth placed in a somewhat historical setting, the same as the gospels. Notice the chiastic structure of the story of Abraham below:
The Abraham Cycle (Genesis 11-25)
A. Genealogical framework (11:10-32)
B. Migration from Haran; separation from Nahor (([12:1-3] 12:4-5a)
C. Building of altars; land promises (12:5b-9 [13:14-18])
D, "Wife-sister episode (12:10-20)
E. Sodom episode and rescue of Lot (13:1-13)
F. Border agreement with Lot (13:1-13)
G. Covenant of sacrifice ((15:1-21)
X Expulsion and rescue of Hagar (16:1-16)
G. Covenant of circumcision (17:1-27)
F. Sodom episode and rescue of Lot (18:1-19:38)
E. Border agreement with Abimelech (21:22-34)
D. Wife-sister episode (20:1-18)
C. Building of altar (22:6) land secured (22:17b; 23:1-20)
B. Migration to Haran; reunification with Nahor’s line (24:1-67)
A. Genealogical framework ([22:20-24] 25:1-18])
The ages of Abraham and Sarah and the magical birth of Isaac are a clue from from the biblical writers that the story is not to be taken literally. However many Christians think they are are forced to believe this ridiculous story because whoever wrote Galatians mentioned Abraham. The author also says the story is a allegory, a statement that has had Bible “scholars” arguing for 1800 years.
I could be wrong, but I think it would be hard to tell using genetics when there was a common ancestor. Assuming that the story in Genesis is close to accurate, Hagar would have the 12 children and Sarah only one and only after Jacob is there 13 children from “Israel” and so in theory there would be 25 divergents depending on who they had as wives. But both Arabs and Jews would have the same singular DNA of Abraham. I think you could prove that these groups have a common ancestor and by doing that prove a Abraham existed but if simply one person from either group intermarried I cant see how you could tell if those children came through the Isaac line or the or the Ishmael/Hagar line of princes.
On another note, it appears that Abraham came from Iraq and was told to move to modern day Israel and then left for Egypt. It looks like, if the bible is fairly accurate Abram and those before him traveled a lot and people would live where ever they wanted and when established would call it their land as a homesteader. And Kings were basically mayors of small cities and would fight each other, so title to the middle east cant be based on any of it because that would mean Jewish people would include Arabs and they would own Iraq as much as they own Israel etc.
Whoever tries to create a DNA profile of the Middle east will have to be a genius.
Gen 37:25: Then they (Jacob’s sons) sat down to eat; and looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels carrying gum, balm, and resin, on their way to carry it down to Egypt.
Gen 37:28: When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.
Gen 25:12: These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, named in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the firstborn of Ishmael; and Kedar, Abdeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah.
According to the Bible the Ishmaelites were cousins to Jacob’s sons since Jacob’s father Isaac and the Ishmaelite’s grandfather Ishmael were brothers. One might wonder why the Ishmaelites would have paid their cousins twenty pieces of silver to buy one of their own relatives or why none these close relatives recognized each other. Also the caravan of Ishmaelites at that time would have been quite small even if it carried the entire twelve tribes of Ishmaelites. All this is just further evidence that Abraham is a fictional character
Well I think there is some obvious things. You don’t travel the same as we do today. When Abraham left his family he took his brothers son Lot with him… It suggests back then when you left, you left, and there was an expectation of danger and that it would be a time before you came back. If ever.
And Even Josephs Brothers didn’t recognize him until he uncovered himself (likely took off makeup the Egyptians wore. (likely to protect from the sun, which turned into a design etc.) And age and uncut hair would likely make it harder. So if they did not ever meet him and then they couldn’t see a resemblance who knows. They sold him off.
There are tombs and cities and documents and dead sea scrolls etc. all in existence not running contrary to each other. the dead sea scrolls for example wiped out the argument that the Old testament was drastically altered. It shows the doubt does not come from evidence but from prejudiced Atheism and its bent to say not to facts and suggest they are stories for no reason other than they say so.
Archaeologists have shown that camels had not yet been domesticated during the time Abraham supposedly lived.
The Israelites were never in Egypt. The Egyptians had a military presence for about 400 years in Canaan which they controlled in order to protect caravans and travelers from bandits The Exodus is a solar myth about the passing over from the sign of Taurus to the sign of Aries. This was explained in detail on another thread here called “Boris Badenoff: Adam and Eve and Astrotheology” where the astrological basis for the story of Adam and Eve is also explained as well as other stories. I suggest you have a look.
There are no tombs of anybody mentioned in the Bible and there are lots of cities, places and a mountain mentioned in the Bible that have never been located. This is because they are metaphors for things that exist in the sky. I don’t think the Old Testament was drastically altered. It’s been drastically misinterpreted, especially by modern people including and especially Bible “scholars.” One reason we diagram the chiasms in the Bible is to see if something may be missing or possibly out of place which would be a good indication that something was either added or subtracted. If you look on my Facebook page, I use a diagram to show that even though the story of the woman caught in adultery in John’s gospel is not present in any of the older manuscripts it was still most likely there in the original text. It was probably misplaced, ruined or accidently skipped by copyists who did make quite a few copying errors.
That’s just wrong. The stories in the Bible are allegories based on astrology. The Bible tells us they are and the biblical writers were not trying to hide this or what they were doing.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Psalm 19:1-4 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hid from its heat.
Romans 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”
The author of John’s Gospel has Nicodemus visit Jesus at night when the stars, also known as the Sons of God and the Watchers, were clearly visible. Any questions?
